Our contingency budget is being used for extra features. Is that acceptable?
Contingency misuseKeep risk-response funding distinct from discretionary scope growth. Using contingency for extras reduces protection against uncertainty and should require an explicit authorized decision.
What to do now
- Identify the contingency's original purpose
- Trace proposed and actual usage
- Assess remaining exposure and funding
- Seek approval for any reallocation
When to escalate
Escalate when
Remaining contingency cannot support the agreed risk response.
Who decides
The accountable risk owner
Example
A sponsor defers a cosmetic addition because the reserve is still needed for uncertain migration remediation.
Mistake to avoid
Treating unused contingency as a free feature budget.
Prevent a repeat
Review whether response tasks and trigger conditions remain appropriate as the project changes.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Documents
- Tasks
- Approvals
Store the risk assessment as a controlled project document and assign response tasks; do not assume a native risk engine is enabled. See the platform
Related cases
- We discover the same risk in every project. How do we stop repeating it?Uncorrected systemic risk
- How do we close a risk properly?Unsupported risk closure
- How do we control project contingency without hiding it?Opaque contingency management
- A sponsor approves scope but not the extra budget. What should we do?Unfunded change approval